1. On 27th May, 2010 a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. JK01L-5283 rolled down into a deep gorge at Ramban, on Jammu — Srinagar National High#31;way, resulting in death to driver and its two other passengers.

2. The dependants of the deceased laid three claims before the Motor Acciden#31;tal Claims Tribunal, Srinagar. The claimants also filed three applications under Section 140 Motor Vehicles Act(the "Act" for short) for award of compensation on the principle of "no fault liability". The applications were opposed by the Appellant Insurance Company inter alia on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of fatal accident. The Tribunal vide order dated 16th March 2011, allowed the applications under Section 140 of the Act, and directed the Appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/-to the claimants on the principle of "no fault liability". The Tribunal was guided by the following conditions laid down by this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nasib Chand and others CIMA No. 100/2008, for guidance of the Tribunal, while dealing with an application under Section 140 of the Act;-

(i) the accident resulted in death or permanent disablement,

(ii) the claim is made against the owner and insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident.

3. The Tribunal observing that; Section 140 of the Act envisages grant of speedy relief to the victim of road traffic accident or to the dependants of the deceased victim, so that the victim or the dependants as the case may be, have something to fall back upon at the time of sudden calamity; held that the claimants had estab#31;lished all the ingredients necessary for grant of compensation under Section 140 and accordingly passed interim award in their favour.

4. The order dated 16th March, 2011 is assailed in the Civil 1st. Misc. Appeals on hand, on the grounds that the Tribunal while awarding compensation under Section 140 of the Act, avoided to deal with the defence set up by the appellants in opposition to the applications. It is pleaded that the Tribunal even while dealing with an application under Section 140 of the Act, is expected not to brush aside the defence taken up by the appellant and allow the application in the name of "no fault liability" without examining the case pleaded by the insured or insurer in opposi#31;tion to the application.

5. Heard and Considered.

6. The case set up by the appellants as already pointed out is that the appellant was within its rights to plead a defence available to it under Section 149(2) Motor Vehicles Act and that the defence set up was required to be adjudicated upon and riot to be ignored on the ground that once involvement of the vehicle in the accident and it having insurance cover was established the claimants were invariably to be held entitled to the compensation under Section 140 of the Act, irrespective of the defence taken. Learned counsel for the appellant to re-inforce his stand places reliance on LPA (c) 01/2008 tilted Oriental Insurance Company v. Som Raj & Ors decided on 04.04.2009 reported at 2009(2)JKJ 26 (HC). And Smt. Yallawwa & Ors v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. reported at 2007 (8) Scale 77. Learned counsel for the appellant in particular relies upon the following observation of the Division Bench in Som Raj's case (supra)

"Therefore, while disposing of the claim based on no fault basis, as the owner of the vehicle is required to be heard, so is the insurer. It may be possible that the owner may contend that he is not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and, if such a plea is taken, unless there is a finding that the vehicle in question was owned by him, no compensation can be awarded against him. Similarly, if the insurer takes a plea, which it is entitled to take as and by way of defence and as has been provided in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the act, the veracity and effect of such plea is required to be adjudi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document